Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07
review-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2014-12-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-12-04
Requested 2014-11-21
Authors Mirja Kühlewind, Richard Scheffenegger, Bob Briscoe
Draft last updated 2014-12-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2014-12-04
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2014-12-04

Review
review-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2014-12-04






As a member of the Operations Directorate, I was asked to review draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07.





 




In general, the draft is written very well. But I think the “requirements” listed in Section 4  is more like “design consideration”. For example, the proposed solution in 5.1 doesn’t meet the “resilience” requirement
 listed in the Section 4. 




 




On the Page 8 under “Timeliness”, the text says “… should be delivered within about one RTT”. But




the earlier sentence describes that it takes longer than one RTT for the  ACK to reach the sender. Here it says that "should be within
 one RTT". Is there any particular value to set for a specific attribute to reach this goal?




 




On the Page 9 under “Accuracy”, the text says: “In the best case the new scheme should even allow reconstruction of the exact number of payload bytes that a CE marked packet was carrying”.





Why not using the value in the Length field of the IP header?





 




Cheers, 




Linda Dunbar